Friday, April 12, 2013

Governor of Massachusetts responds to objections about his seeking bonds for destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive.

1. Introduction.
2. My letter, addressed to Governor Patrick and to the head of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.:
3. The governor’s apparent answer.

1. Introduction.

I have just received an email from the governor’s office. I am not positive, but I think it responds to my snail mail letter transmitting to the governor the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s tree destruction plan associated with his bond request on the Charles River.

2. My letter, addressed to Governor Patrick and to the head of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.:

Gentlemen:

I have received the following notice from a group which falsely calls itself the Charles River “Conservancy.” The brackets constitute my modification in the name of accuracy. The comment is buried in a much longer communication.

**********

As our legislative leaders prioritize investment decisions, now is the time to let them know that their constituents [oppose environmental destruction included in the Patrick budget]. Governor Patrick's proposed bond bill includes a $2 million line-item for construction of bridge underpasses on the Charles, as well as over $24 million for the paths.

**********

Please be advised that there is a serious problem with flat out lies and lies of omission practiced by the DCR, Cambridge and their friends in their actions for environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse / killing.

This outrage is also exemplified in their ongoing destruction of the Alewife Reservation using a different fake group as front there.

Please note that your bond bill is for $2 million for bridge underpasses and $24 million “for the paths.”

That is one very major multiple of 12 going from what should be (and is not) a larger project to a smaller.

The reality is that the project includes usual heartless animal abuse plus the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

Enclosed are their tree destruction plans. Some of the smaller trees being destroyed are perhaps 50 years old. They are a magnificent grove of 105 trees at the Memorial drive split. Destruction targets approximately 80 to 85 of them.

The DCR previously sought Obama moneys for this outrage. The flat out lie at that time was that all of the targeted trees were diseased. That flat out lie was disproved by their filing with the Cambridge Conservation Commission.

The project would further decimate the habitat of the 32 year resident, very valuable and very popular gaggle of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR and Cambridge have been deliberately starving them through bizarre aspects of the Magazine Beach project, aspects which were achieved through flat out lies in their supposed master plan. They walled off Magazine Beach with a master plan calling for a lawn to the river. The key manager has emphasized their value by his non stop lying of “no intent to harm.” He has publicly bragged that he is starving them.

The secret fine print of the DCR plans call for killing off all animals in the Charles River Basin by their definition of “parkland.”

You reversed responsible members of your team by allowing space to be left open for the “underpasses” which did not mentioned the outrageous environmental destruction and continuing heartless animal abuse. I hope you will rejoin those responsible members.

3. The governor’s apparent answer.

From: Webmail, Gov (GOV) ;

TO: boblat

RE: Your message to Governor Patrick

Dear Robert,

On behalf of Governor Deval L. Patrick, thank you for your letter regarding the FY2014 budget. Governor Patrick welcomes your thoughts on the state spending initiatives that are important to you.

The Patrick-Murray administration has proposed a balanced, responsible budget that makes investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure that will grow jobs and opportunity in the near-term, and strengthen our Commonwealth in the long term. We have also proposed a series of reforms to change the way government does business to achieve savings, improve performance and renew trust in government.

We have made great progress to responsibly address our long-term liabilities. We have taken steps to control growth in health care costs and address the deficiencies in our transportation system. Yet, even with these reforms the state budget is challenged to make critical investments in our economy, particularly those in education and transportation.

Our budget calls for such investments and pays for them with a thoughtful and responsible revenue p r oposal . The result will be a more progressive, equitable and transparent tax structure. We do not submit this proposal lightly and understand that many households in Massachusetts continue to struggle under the economic consequences of the Great Recession. But Governor Patrick firmly believes that investing meaningfully today in education and transportation will significantly improve our economic tomorrows.

In fiscal year 2014, we will continue to use the budget as a vehicle to reform state government. This year the budget is presented in a new program format for the first time. It will provide comprehensive information on how taxpayer dollars are being spent, making the budget more accessible and transparent than ever. To review the budget proposal in its entirety, we invite you to v isit www.mass.gov/budget/governor .

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact our office direct at 617-725-4005.

On Wednesday, April 10, the state started the environmental review process on the bridge repairs proposed for the River Street Bridge and the Western Avenue Bridge, the next two bridges over the Charles River, to the west from the BU Bridge. This was a public hearing conducted by the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office.

The public meeting was conducted at the Honan Library in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, MA, USA, perhaps half a mile from the bridges.

The bridges work as a paired highway. Western Avenue runs west. River Street runs east.

Governor Patrick ordered the department to leave room for a bike highway under / through the bridges. They are leaving room for it by doing nothing really to support it and nothing physically to oppose it. The analysis strongly opposes the two alternatives for the highway in the Charles River our through holes cut in the bridges. They supports highway level bike and pedestrian movement.

By supporting highway level traffic, MassDOT is opposing the governor’s attempt at bond authorization for a bike highway which would destroy hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges along with massive amounts of animal habitat, wetlands and the Charles River. The ongoing heartless abuse of the beautiful, 32 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese would be made worse.

The big problem with the highway level bike movement is that the proposal is to confine bike operation to sidewalks, extending the nuttiness being commenced by Cambridge on Western Avenue in Cambridge.

2. Contrast: Longfellow Bridge.

The night before, a comparable meeting was conducted to go over the first stage of implementation of bridge repairs to the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. They have received their environmental approvals and are going forward.

The meeting was conducted in the Shriners’ Burn Center auditorium in this small hospital east of Massachusetts General Hospital, perhaps a quarter of a mile from the Longfellow Bridge. It is located in the Beacon Hill neighborhood of Boston, MA, USA.

For this bridge repair proposal, the Cambridge bike nuttiness has been rejected, and there is no connection to the Governor’s highway. A responsible department is behaving responsibly and has not been interfered with by an administration which is influenced by the fraudulent machinations centered in Cambridge.

On very big part of the fraudulent tactics in Cambridge’s fight for the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive is the lie that Cambridge is pro bicycle and benefiting bikes by this destruction. Confining bikes to sidewalks proves this particular con to be a flat out lie.

3. Overlap between meetings.

It was a pleasure not to see the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” at the Longfellow meeting. Their destructiveness has been rejected.

Distressingly, the head of this group was at the River/Western meeting, with one of her assistants. She did not seem to bring the usual collection of Cambridge type robots praising her destructiveness with mindless intensity, and loudly proclaiming themselves experts while demonstrating contempt for reality. I however did not stay to the end of the meeting. I did observe a look on her face which displayed lack of pleasure.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation was not represented at the Longfellow meeting. Richard Corsi was present at the River/Western. The look on his face was not has happy as the look on the face of the leader of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”

I am still trying to understand how to evaluate the budget process. I hope the lack of health on the faces of the bad guys includes a rejection by the legislature of the Governor’s destructive highway.

4. My comments.

I spoke at both meetings.

The Longfellow meeting was very businesslike. We went over some good and valuable details. The most important issue environmentally is a plan to close this bridge to car traffic from Boston to Cambridge during years of construction starting this coming June, and thus to reroute that traffic to the adjoining bridges, perhaps even to the BU Bridge.

At the River/Western meeting, I followed a gentleman who had biked from Waltham to make the meeting. He was received with expressions of pleased reception at his level of bike use, a ride which could easily be 10 or 12 miles.

I have bicycle commuted to Waltham from Cambridge.

I expressed in my comments a very strong feeling that having to do that commute going up and down sidewalks was total nuttiness. I pointed out Cambridge’s explanation that people should ignore the sidewalk bike highways when making left turns proved the nuttiness of the proposal. A later speaker commented that confining bikes to sidewalk bike highways would put the bikes directly in the path of cars making right turns, another aspect to Cambridge’s contempt for bicyclists.

The engineers followed my comments with a suggestion for making left turns which was not as responsible as Cambridge’s.

While I was there, every person who followed me who mentioned the sidewalk bike highway nuttiness objected to the concept. When I had to leave, I was treated very well by members of the audience including at least one state type.

5. Filing Requirements.

The ENF at its end provides details for mailing comments but neglects to mention that email comments are encouraged. Comments are due not later than April 16, 2013.

About Me

Sponsored by Friends of the White Geese, Bob La Trémouille, chair/editor. Friends of the White Geese has worked since 2000 and has been a recognized Massachusetts, USA non-profit organization since 2001. Our goal is to defend the environment on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, USA.